Re: Write-up on "tree repositories" as an alternative to conflictors

Regarding Section 4.11, let me reformulate the main definition to make
it a bit less awkward.

A patch with name n is inactive with respect to a set of tree patches S
if it is deactivated by any tree patch (P,D) in S (i.e. n is in D),
subject to the side condition that there exists no patch name m (in any
tree patch in S) that depends on n but is independent of P (that is, not
included in P's dependencies).

In other words, m re-activates n if it depends on n and is not depended
on by any of the tree patches that deactivate n.

Suppose m depends on n and n is deactivated by a tree patch (P,D) i.e. n
is in D. I wonder about the side condition and what it implies.

If P depends on m, then there is a p in P that depends on m.

Doesn't that imply that such a p is also a member of D?

And that m is also in P, since n is in D which is a subset of P?

Also, is it true that m can reactivate another patch n only if m is active?

Cheers
Ben